America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Reforming child support laws is badly needed. These are state laws for the most part. There is some federal interference via presidential declaration which occurred when Clinton was President. Child support should not be an issue at the federal level. That is the only issue to address at the federal level...remove any law or regulation.

You will need more positions which address many activities of the federal government to have a successful campaign for the Senate.

I would be glad to participate in any discussion you have on any subject.

JP, here is something you might want to look at. This kind of thing if applied nationally could get every citizen who was under a legal requirement contributing to child support.

QUOTE

Much of the money will be garnished by the state to pay delinquent child support, back taxes, overdue student loan payments and other debts.

A good place to start would be a one dollar gas tax and its carbon equivalent that would be equally kicked back to every citizen. You could carry this kind of thing further with the idea of a national commons in which various activities were taxed for usage and then returned equally to the citizens. All would be subject to cs garnishment.

On a whole different track if we turned prisons into places of work where you were paid at least minimum wage that would be an all around win win with cs garnishment being one of the winners.

Reforming child support laws is badly needed. These are state laws for the most part. There is some federal interference via presidential declaration which occurred when Clinton was President. Child support should not be an issue at the federal level. That is the only issue to address at the federal level...remove any law or regulation.

I agree that President Clinton sold out the USA and our Democratic Party principles when he signed that ugly Republican legislature on Welfare reform, but the dirty deed is done now.

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 13 2011, 01:48 PM)

You will need more positions which address many activities of the federal government to have a successful campaign for the Senate.

One would think so but I find it to be quite the opposite.

Most political campaigns are very shallow and just name-recognition is all many incumbents run on.

The successful campaigns really do often have little more than a catchy saying as like "Yes we can" or "9-9-9" or "Peace with honor" and if a candidate's platform gets too complicated then we get lost into our own created confusion.

QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 13 2011, 03:19 PM)

On a whole different track if we turned prisons into places of work where you were paid at least minimum wage that would be an all around win win with cs garnishment being one of the winners.

We do NOT want to turn American prisons into slave-labor camps, and the prison inmates would love to be given jobs even for $1.00 per day.

If we want to create jobs then we have a 9% unemployment rate of non-criminal workers already available.

But more so the idea that some people want to create labor-camps for parents so we can physically force parents into paying our Court ordered Child Support might be a BIG sign that this system is going way too far overboard.

Reforming child support laws is badly needed. These are state laws for the most part. There is some federal interference via presidential declaration which occurred when Clinton was President. Child support should not be an issue at the federal level. That is the only issue to address at the federal level...remove any law or regulation.

You will need more positions which address many activities of the federal government to have a successful campaign for the Senate.

I would be glad to participate in any discussion you have on any subject.

I disagree- we need a father's bill of rights and to end child support as we know it- there is no way in gods green earth that a woman should get over 25k in her lifetime from child support. If she can't afford them, she shouldn't get custody- period.

I was incensed when I heard of a performer arrested for 420k dollars in back child support- what in gods name does the court think that a woman needs 420k dollars to raise a child? It is simply a lottery ticket for a lazy woman to use her uterus to extort money from her meal train. Personally, any woman that recieved over 300 dollars a month in child support, I don't care how many children she has, I would make her pay it back with 50% interest, and garnish 60% of her gross income just to see how she likes it. Yeah, I am angry. I have seen way too much abuse by CSSD in my lifetime, and it forced my dad into an early grave. A woman should NEVER be allowed to live off child support.

I was incensed when I heard of a performer arrested for 420k dollars in back child support- what in gods name does the court think that a woman needs 420k dollars to raise a child? It is simply a lottery ticket for a lazy woman to use her uterus to extort money from her meal train. Personally, any woman that recieved over 300 dollars a month in child support, I don't care how many children she has, I would make her pay it back with 50% interest, and garnish 60% of her gross income just to see how she likes it. Yeah, I am angry. I have seen way too much abuse by CSSD in my lifetime, and it forced my dad into an early grave. A woman should NEVER be allowed to live off child support.

I'm sure if my father would have read this, he would crack open a beer, and probably use a four-letter metaphor followed by the word "yeah."

He and his father started up a company many years ago. There was no such thing as a weekly, or even bi-weekly, paycheck. He got paid when they got paid by their customers. So, what he did was, paid several months upfront. There were times when he paid 6-8 months upfront. He got receipts, signed by my mother, for all of it. This went on for several years. One day, they go out of business and he's out of work for a few months. Which just so happened to be a month over what he paid in advance for. So, my father goes down to talk to them. See if he can work something out, etc... He brought in all of his receipts to show he is up to date and that he's willing to work with them.

I've heard this story so many times and my dad gets pretty angry every time he thinks about it. He said the lady looked through his receipts and had to catch herself from laughing. She thought he was trying to pull one over on her. She then stated that it has to be paid month to month. Any money over the court appointed amount is charity. Instead of one month behind on child support, he was over two years behind. Thousands instead of hundreds.

I don't know if the laws have changed since then or if that's only a Utah thing, but it took a long time for my father to pay all that back. I love my mother, but she should have given all that garnishment back to him.

On a whole different track if we turned prisons into places of work where you were paid at least minimum wage that would be an all around win win with cs garnishment being one of the winners.

We do NOT want to turn American prisons into slave-labor camps, and the prison inmates would love to be given jobs even for $1.00 per day.

If we want to create jobs then we have a 9% unemployment rate of non-criminal workers already available.

But more so the idea that some people want to create labor-camps for parents so we can physically force parents into paying our Court ordered Child Support might be a BIG sign that this system is going way too far overboard.

I'm not talking about slave labor camps. I'm talking about job opportunities for prisoners that give them increasing purchasing power and job skills and among other things allow them to play some responsible roll with their families. Along with that it could help keep a lot of jobs at home that are currently being shipped overseas. It's not like there isn't any precedent. A friend of mine had a job doing prison dry cleaning while he was incarcerated and was able apply the skill on the outside.

Welcome. FWIW, while you're correct that the CS system needs to be "reformed", your reforms amount to nothing more than a dirty bandage.

Child support should ONLY be awarded to an innocent spouse who gets custody. Which means bringing back fault based divorce. Which also means that if wombmomma didn't marry babydaddy, no child support.

Child support, as currently constituted, is an incentive to bad behavior. Once you grok that, you might be able to put together a reform that comports with justice. As it is, my guess is that your platform will manage to turn off the feminists ( "what, no minimum child support, how mean") and the manosphere ("It don't take 1.8 million dollars a year to raise a kid!" - Random NBA BabyDaddy ) and pretty much everybody in between.

I'm not talking about slave labor camps. I'm talking about job opportunities for prisoners that give them increasing purchasing power and job skills and among other things allow them to play some responsible roll with their families. Along with that it could help keep a lot of jobs at home that are currently being shipped overseas. It's not like there isn't any precedent. A friend of mine had a job doing prison dry cleaning while he was incarcerated and was able apply the skill on the outside.

Seems like a win win win all the way around.

In China they have their prisoners working at jobs because they view giving a prisoner "3-hots-and-a-cot" as outrageous, and the self righteous American gov has long time condemned China for those slave-labor camps which so very many Americans would like to see done here.

If we make prisoners to work even if we pay them a salary above the minimum wage but we deny such workers the simple basic human rights as like the ability to buy their own food or their own housing or the right to have a family then that is slavery and it would be cruel and inhuman.

And you are suggesting this for "PARENTS", not violent criminals but for dead-broke parents, to be put into work camps for their crime of parenting.

The cost of incarceration in the USA is around $25,000 per inmate per year, so for that cost we could give each parent a full time 40 hour week minimum wage job where they could live free and paying taxes and from that same $25,000 we could pay off the parents' Child Support orders in full, and then we would still have some cash left over to keep in the prison system for holding real criminals.

Child Support is an important issue, which has been undergoing change in many states. A large potential voting block, but one that has never seemed to have a corresponding campaign to latch on to. Even some of the recipients of the current system know that it needs to change. My sister commented as such several times, even though she was the beneficiary. There also needs to be some way to ensure that child support is actually spent on the child, too. There are plenty of stories of the one paying support having to buy clothes, etc for their child, because they don't have any---indicating baby momma is spending all the money on herself, and not on the child. There should be some way to control that. The court system, as you say, inherently assumes the father is a deadbeat, and the mother is a saint....which is certainly not always the case. I look forward to seeing what you contribute to debates here.

My real name is James Patrick Cusick, and as such I try to go by my two initials of JP.

But "John" was a close guess.

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 14 2011, 03:37 PM)

Child Support is an important issue, which has been undergoing change in many states. A large potential voting block, but one that has never seemed to have a corresponding campaign to latch on to. Even some of the recipients of the current system know that it needs to change. My sister commented as such several times, even though she was the beneficiary. There also needs to be some way to ensure that child support is actually spent on the child, too. There are plenty of stories of the one paying support having to buy clothes, etc for their child, because they don't have any---indicating baby momma is spending all the money on herself, and not on the child. There should be some way to control that. The court system, as you say, inherently assumes the father is a deadbeat, and the mother is a saint....which is certainly not always the case.

I do NOT want the gov to start supervising the Custodial parents as the State does NOT belong in the parenting business.

The laws now cheat and mistreat the noncustodial parents so we do not need some equality by violating the Custodial parents too.

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 14 2011, 03:37 PM)

I look forward to seeing what you contribute to debates here.

It turns out that this forum has me rather severely restricted and I see no way around that.

As I said in the OP that some people might view me as SPAM because I am not anonymous and I do have my own agenda.

It appears that posters here expect to discuss this subject out on the main board but I am restricted from starting a thread and so I am stuck here.

I have looked over the forum and I do not want to make posting onto various topics just to be posting when I have no interest or nothing to add into those other topics.

It turns out that this forum has me rather severely restricted and I see no way around that.

As I said in the OP that some people might view me as SPAM because I am not anonymous and I do have my own agenda.

It appears that posters here expect to discuss this subject out on the main board but I am restricted from starting a thread and so I am stuck here.

I have looked over the forum and I do not want to make posting onto various topics just to be posting when I have no interest or nothing to add into those other topics.

The rules appear unnecessarily too restrictive on this forum.

Welcome to JP

Don't worry - that's a just a protection for the rest of us from fly-by-night posters who turn up, open a thread and then disappear from view. Not that you're in that category, you understand.

You have to contribute below the line (within the rules) a few times before you can start creating new threads of your own. Them's the rules. But it's also good from your point of view, surely? If you're to be taken seriously as a candidate, you ought to be able to frame debates and engage with issues across the board, not only on your specialist subject area, no?

My real name is James Patrick Cusick, and as such I try to go by my two initials of JP.

But "John" was a close guess.

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 14 2011, 03:37 PM)

Child Support is an important issue, which has been undergoing change in many states. A large potential voting block, but one that has never seemed to have a corresponding campaign to latch on to. Even some of the recipients of the current system know that it needs to change. My sister commented as such several times, even though she was the beneficiary. There also needs to be some way to ensure that child support is actually spent on the child, too. There are plenty of stories of the one paying support having to buy clothes, etc for their child, because they don't have any---indicating baby momma is spending all the money on herself, and not on the child. There should be some way to control that. The court system, as you say, inherently assumes the father is a deadbeat, and the mother is a saint....which is certainly not always the case.

I do NOT want the gov to start supervising the Custodial parents as the State does NOT belong in the parenting business.

The laws now cheat and mistreat the noncustodial parents so we do not need some equality by violating the Custodial parents too.

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 14 2011, 03:37 PM)

I look forward to seeing what you contribute to debates here.

It turns out that this forum has me rather severely restricted and I see no way around that.

As I said in the OP that some people might view me as SPAM because I am not anonymous and I do have my own agenda.

It appears that posters here expect to discuss this subject out on the main board but I am restricted from starting a thread and so I am stuck here.

I have looked over the forum and I do not want to make posting onto various topics just to be posting when I have no interest or nothing to add into those other topics.

The rules appear unnecessarily too restrictive on this forum.

We've all abided by the rules and waited a while before being able to post our own threads. It's no big deal. It gives us a chance to first get to know each other a little in other threads. In the past there have been posters who joined us for no reason but to ride their own hobby horse, only to flame out in a very short time.

I hope you will see fit to join us in discussions besides the one that comprises your platform. Candidates who sound well-informed on a variety of subjects tend to gain the confidence of would-be supporters. On the other hand, one-subject politicians, although they may gain temporary attention ("The rent is too damn high!") tend to become a flash in the pan.

We've all abided by the rules and waited a while before being able to post our own threads. It's no big deal. It gives us a chance to first get to know each other a little in other threads. In the past there have been posters who joined us for no reason but to ride their own hobby horse, only to flame out in a very short time.

I hope you will see fit to join us in discussions besides the one that comprises your platform. Candidates who sound well-informed on a variety of subjects tend to gain the confidence of would-be supporters. On the other hand, one-subject politicians, although they may gain temporary attention ("The rent is too damn high!") tend to become a flash in the pan.

It turns out that I too am one of those ride my "own hobby horse" and my flame here has indeed run out.

I still get email notifications if anyone wants to post on here but there is no reason for me to stay here.

I am active on many Internet forums and I do not participate on any subject just to debate and debate without purpose or conclusion.

And it really makes no sense to me that you or this forum or anyone to not want any short term participation or single subject members because that is a significant part of humanity.

Obeying rules is a far different virtue rather than paranoid restrictions. This forum can act like a privileged private Country Club since it appears that way, and so be it.

It is time for me to move on, but I will still reply here if any one wants to talk to me as a lone ranger, and as me being one of those kind of persons that are not wanted here.